VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both sides. ( 2 ) THE petitioners in CRP No. 1755 of 1999 are the respondents-third parties. Respondents 1 to 4 are defendants in the suit and petitioners in the I. A. Respondents 5 to 12 are said to be the legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff in the suit. Whereas, CRP Nos. 1562 and 215 of 1999 have been filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff and respondents 1 to 4 herein are the defendants and respondents 5 and 6 are the third parties. ( 3 ) CIVIL revision petitions. 1562 and 1755 seek to challenge the order dated 19-2-1999 passed in LA. No. 509 of 1994 in O. S. No. 136 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Senior civil Judge, Srikakulam under which the application filed on behalf of the defendants for issuing notice to third parties under order 8-A of CPC has been allowed. Whereas CRP No. 215 of 1999 has been filed against the order dated 17-11-1998 in i. A. No. 508 of 1994 in O. S. No. 136 of 1993 under which the learned Principal Senior civil Judge granted leave to the defendants to issue notice to third parties i. e. , petitioners in CRP No. 1755 of 1999. ( 4 ) THE facts leading to these petitions may be stated briefly as follows: the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are the partners in the fourth defendant firm. Due to differences, OS No. 104 of 1991 was filed for dissolution of partnership. During the pendency of the suit, the matter was referred to T. Babji as sole arbitrator. After discussions and consultations, the rice mill of the fourth respondent was put up for auction and knocked down in favour of the defendants for a sum of Rs. 11, 60, 000/ -. Out of the said amount, the share of the plaintiff was Rs. 7, 15, 330. 33 ps. and that defendants 1 to 3 paid a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- to the deceased 1st plaintiff towards his half share through the said Babji on 8-12-1991 in the presence of some persons. The said Babji in turn handed over the amount to the deceased 1st plaintiff under a receipt as per the terms and conditions. 33 ps. and that defendants 1 to 3 paid a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- to the deceased 1st plaintiff towards his half share through the said Babji on 8-12-1991 in the presence of some persons. The said Babji in turn handed over the amount to the deceased 1st plaintiff under a receipt as per the terms and conditions. A day prior to the said payment, it was mutually agreed between the parties in the presence of the arbitrator that the defendants shall pay the balance of the amount of Rs. 39, 333. 33 ps. to the deceased first plaintiff at the time of transfer of share in the fourth petitioner mill. The deceased plaintiff refused to receive the amount of Rs. 3, 16, 000/- agreed to be paid as per the terms and conditions of the auction. The third defendant gave a bankers cheque dated 5-6-1992 on State bank of India, Narasannapeta in favour of t. Babji and A. Vaman Murthy. It is stated that the said amount was with those two persons as the deceased-plaintiff had refused to receive that amount. That after payment of this amount, an amount of rs. 39,333. 33 ps. only was due to the deceased-plaintiff. It is stated that the share of the first respondent-plaintiff in the fourth defendant mill was Rs. 1, 84, 537. 32 ps. The deceased plaintiff had asked the defendants to pay an amount of Rs. 1, 90, 000/- being towards his share and towards goodwill by adjusting the amount of Rs. 3, 65, 000/- lying with T. Babji and Sri A. Vaman Murthy. The defendants 2 and 3 gave three separate bankers cheques each for Rs. 61,622/- on 19-10-1992. It is stated that the deceased- plaintiff suppressed all the above said facts and filed the suit against defendant No. 1 and others for an amount of rs. 5,25,333. 33 ps. It is stated that an amount of Rs. 3,16,000/- is in fact lying with T. Babji and A. Vamanmurthy and a legal notice was issued by defendants on 19-1-1994 to Babji and A. Vamanmurthy and they did not comply the same. It is stated that the plaintiff got issued a belated reply notice on 25-3-1994 that Sri Babji and sri Vaman Murthy have to indemnify him with regard to the said amount of rs. 3,16,000/ -. It is stated that the notice may be issued to the third parties. It is stated that the plaintiff got issued a belated reply notice on 25-3-1994 that Sri Babji and sri Vaman Murthy have to indemnify him with regard to the said amount of rs. 3,16,000/ -. It is stated that the notice may be issued to the third parties. 4-A. The plaintiff filed a counter in the above petition during his lifetime. It is stated that the petition has been filed to complicate and procrastinate the litigation. It was stated by the plaintiff that the auction of the fourth defendant mill has been held on 18-10-1992 and that the defendants executed a kararunama also on 19-10-1992 admitting that they have paid only Rs. 1,90. 000/- against the due amount of Rs. 7,15,333/ -. It is also denied that sri Babji and Sri Vamanamurthy acted as mediators. It is stated that they never paid any amount to him. It is stated that there is collusion between the defendants and sri T. Babji and Sri Vaman Murthy. It is stated that the defendants can take separate proceedings against Sri Babji and Sri vaman Murthy if they have any cause of action. It is thus stated that the petition is not maintainable under law. During the pendency of the said 1. A. , the plaintiff died and respondents 2 to 9 have been impleaded as parties. ( 5 ) IT may be mentioned that earlier I. A. No. 508 of 1994 filed under Order 8-A rule 1 of CPC for granting leave to issue notices to third parties was allowed on 19-7-1998 and in this petition the proposed third parties have been given notices. They appeared in response to the notice and pleaded that they were not aware of any disputes between the plaintiff and the defendants and the alleged auction proceedings and that they never acted as mediators or arbitrators between the deceased plaintiff and the defendants in. connection with the affairs of the fourth defendant mill. It is stated that they do not have any amount with them belonging to the deceased plaintiff and that the defendants never paid any amount either in cash or by way of cheque to them. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the petitioners in the I. A. , exs. A-1 to A-5 have been marked; and on behalf of the respondents, Exs. Bl- to B-6 have been marked in support of their respective cases. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the petitioners in the I. A. , exs. A-1 to A-5 have been marked; and on behalf of the respondents, Exs. Bl- to B-6 have been marked in support of their respective cases. No documents have been marked on behalf of the third parties. ( 7 ) IT was contended before the learned senior Judge that there is no agreement of indemnity between the third parties and the defendants in the suit and the question of contribution from the third parties does not arise. In support of the said contention, the learned Counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sri Gopal Manures and Bone Mill vs. Ranganayakulu. ( 8 ) SURPRISINGLY, the learned Judge while referring to this decision, observed as follows:"even though the above said aspect and the proposition rendered by his lordship are there, Order 8-A cpc, specifically states that the petitioners can ask the Court to implead the third parties under such order either for contribution from or for indemnifying them. " ( 9 ) OBVIOUSLY, the question of contribution does not arise in this case. It is not the case of the defendants, and is not stated anywhere in the affidavit filed on behalf of the defendants in the petition under Order 8-A of C. P. C. or in the written statement that there was any joint liability of the defendants and the third parties in favour of the plaintiff which the defendants alone discharged by which they can call upon the third parties to make their contribution. On behalf of the defendants, the petitioners in I. A. No. 509 of 1998 , an elaborate and lengthy affidavit has been filed by defendant No. 1. Nowhere is there any assertion that there was any agreement of indemnity between them and the third parties, namely, Sri T. Babji and Sri Vaman murthy. What is stated is that an amount of rs. 3,60,000/- which was payable to the plaintiff was paid by them to the said third parties. If the said persons had failed to convey the amount to the plaintiff or they have misappropriated that amount, the remedy of the defendants lies against them. From the facts alleged, neither an express agreement of indemnity is made out nor can such an agreement be implied. If the said persons had failed to convey the amount to the plaintiff or they have misappropriated that amount, the remedy of the defendants lies against them. From the facts alleged, neither an express agreement of indemnity is made out nor can such an agreement be implied. ( 10 ) AS already stated, the question of contribution by the third parties does not arise inasmuch as it is not the case where the defendants claimed to have paid something for discharging an obligation which they owed along with the third parties jointly in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, it is a clear case where Order 8-A of c. P. C. cannot be invoked. ( 11 ) THE learned Senior Judge, however, buttressed his order allowing the petition with an observation that earlier order in LA. No. 508 of 1994 was already passed under which the defendants were permitted to serve notice on the third parties. After service of notice, the third parties came forward and opposed the notice. It is not specifically contemplated to issue notice to the third parties before an order is passed under Order 8-A of CPC. However; inasmuch as the notices have been issued to the third parties and the third parties opposed the application, the Court cannot refuse to adjudicate the questions raised on their behalf and merely rest on the fact that an earlier application was ordered before notice was issued between the third parties. ( 12 ) IN the result, the order granting leave and directing notice to third parties under order 8-A of C. P. C. passed by the learned senior Civil Judge cannot be sustained and the civil revision petitions are accordingly allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.